TCU getting an ass beating!

[Balldog]

23-6 in the 2nd qtr.

Quit crying about not getting a BCS game.

[Ksyrup]

Why does any team with any aspirations play on any day other than a Saturday?

It's gotten to where Thursday nights are Guaranteed Upset Nights.

[Balldog]

Why? -> $$$$

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Why does any team with any aspirations play on any day other than a Saturday?

It's gotten to where Thursday nights are Guaranteed Upset Nights.

If you call it an upset. Southern Miss was a 2 1/2 point favorite.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
If you call it an upset. Southern Miss was a 2 1/2 point favorite.

The rankings are a joke. This was the number 9 team in the country and an underdog against an unranked opponent.

[Taur]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Why does any team with any aspirations play on any day other than a Saturday?

Was this a scheduled thursday night game at the beginning of the year? I am just curious as to how flexible College schedules are?

At the beginning of the season who would of thought that TCU vs Southern Miss would of deserved a nationally televised game in primetime?

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Taur
Was this a scheduled thursday night game at the beginning of the year? I am just curious as to how flexible College schedules are?

At the beginning of the season who would of thought that TCU vs Southern Miss would of deserved a nationally televised game in primetime?

Yes, they schedule these games at the beginning of the year. You can get some good matchups, but also some dogs, just like Monday Night Football. Last night's Marshall/UCF game was an example of one that sounded very intriguing at the beginning of the year, but, turned out to be a crap matchup. Works both ways.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally posted by The Afoci
This was the number 9 team in the country and an underdog against an unranked opponent.

This happens more frequently than you would think, especially when the ranked team is playing on the road.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Vegas Vic
This happens more frequently than you would think, especially when the ranked team is playing on the road.

I think his point was they aren't the 9th best team in the country.

This was pretty clear to most fans, but it will be nice to shut some of the idiots whining about non-BCS conferences being shut out of the BCS games.

[Pumpy Tudors]

So it's a bad thing to think that non-BCS teams should get a CHANCE at a BCS bowl? So TCU's had an undefeated run that's probably about to end, but this is supposed to prove that a Conference USA team or ANY other team from such a conference is undeserving? Thanks for the heads-up. So, one day, when a MAC or Mountain West team goes undefeated, keep quiet, everybody. Obviously, they shouldn't even be considered for championship consideration.

Whew, glad we got that little wrinkle out of the way.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I think his point was they aren't the 9th best team in the country.

This was pretty clear to most fans, but it will be nice to shut some of the idiots whining about non-BCS conferences being shut out of the BCS games.

No, it won't shut any of us up.

That's what people keep failing to realize. Just because they happened to lose, doesn't mean the system if a fair one.

And before someone pops off "you guys just don't change your opinion" keep in mind two things:

1) Very few of us hoping TCU would get in thought TCU was a legitimate top 10 team. We knew they were a good, not great team. It isn't a shock to any of us that they did indeed lose.

2) You wouldn't have changed your mind had TCU destroyed Southern Miss.

TroyF

[Easy Mac]

Obviously a BCS team has never lost late in the season to a lesser team and knocked themselves out of major bowl contention. Since the same is happening to TCU, it must mean that no non-BCS team should get in a BCS bowl. Therefore, it means no BCS team should be in a BCS bowl.

[CamEdwards]

down by three with five to play... hardly an ass-whupping.

[mauchow]

WAS an ass-whupping if you been watching any of it..

SMU is choking big time..

If TCU wins.. Talk about another stupid week of whining from TCU fans... But at the same time it shuts them up too.. Maybe they'll be happy being left out so they're not embarrassed?

[mckerney]

6 points, 3:09, could get good.

Go Frogs.

[mauchow]

TURNOVER.. That's game.. Damn

[mauchow]

By the way, I don't know who's side I'm on.. last week I found myself cheering for them, but hey.. I'm weird like that. .back off! j/k


GO VIKINGS!!!

[rjolley]

Someone explain the out of bounds rule. Wasn't that runner out of bounds?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally posted by rjolley
Someone explain the out of bounds rule. Wasn't that runner out of bounds?

My guess is that they're saying that his forward progress was stopped while he was still in bounds.

[sabotai]

I did not see the play, but going on what Pumpy said, if your forward progess is stopped before you go out of bounds, it is considered in bounds and the clock continues to run.

[finkenst]

The rankings are a joke. This was the number 9 team in the country and an underdog against an unranked opponent.

Didn't the #3 team in the country lose to an unranked team 3 weeks in a row?

[Buccaneer]

Obviously, they shouldn't even be considered for championship consideration.

You got that right.

Pumpy, Troy - you guys are beating a hollow drum. It may be unfair for a mid-major team not being able to schedule a decent set of games BUT you don't rank a team on what-ifs. With TCU's schedule and results, they should not have even been considered in the top 20. Beating (in same cases, barely beating) poor to mediocre teams does not mean a thing, regardless what the computers or polls say. It's pretty stupid to whine and cry that they would get shut out of the BCS bowls or that they should be a playoffs when your energies should have been directed towards creating more of a equitable system.

[albionmoonlight]

People forget that a non-BCS team (Tulane) has had an undefeated season and did not even get to sniff a BCS bowl.

There are two distinct arguments, which I do not think are mutually exclusive.

Fans of the BCS conferences who want the fans of Cinderalla teams to shut up are saying that these teams (TCU this year) would probably lose to the top 15 or so teams in the country. And I think that they are right.

Fans of the Cinderalla teams simply want the chance to prove themselves one way or the other. And I think that they deserve that chance.

I don't like the BCS because it gives an air of legitimacy to what is a mythical national championship. Go back to the days of conference bowl tie-ins, media polls and endless bar-room debate (my choice)--or go to a playoff (good idea except that it kills the regular season.) Just stop with this system that is supposed to produce a "national champion," but is really just subjectivity and guesswork hidden behind a lot of formulas.

[sabotai]

I love how some people act like others are "crying" and "whining" because they simply disagree with them.

[fof playa]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
People forget that a non-BCS team (Tulane) has had an undefeated season and did not even get to sniff a BCS bowl.

there was no BCS in 1998.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
People forget that a non-BCS team (Tulane) has had an undefeated season and did not even get to sniff a BCS bowl.

There are two distinct arguments, which I do not think are mutually exclusive.

Fans of the BCS conferences who want the fans of Cinderalla teams to shut up are saying that these teams (TCU this year) would probably lose to the top 15 or so teams in the country. And I think that they are right.

Fans of the Cinderalla teams simply want the chance to prove themselves one way or the other. And I think that they deserve that chance.

I don't like the BCS because it gives an air of legitimacy to what is a mythical national championship. Go back to the days of conference bowl tie-ins, media polls and endless bar-room debate (my choice)--or go to a playoff (good idea except that it kills the regular season.) Just stop with this system that is supposed to produce a "national champion," but is really just subjectivity and guesswork hidden behind a lot of formulas.

I agree with this. Cinderalla teams need to have the chance to prove themselves. That was what my beef was with TCU and those holding that team up in challenging the BCS elites. They had not proven themselves at all. If they had played just one decent team (and won), then they would be more legitamite (sp?), imo. Until they do, however, then they can be ranked with those playing much better teams.

[panerd]

Yeah you guys are right the pre-BCS days were so much more fair. Remember the year TCU was in the Rose Bowl and Tulane was battling in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship?

At least now Tulane has some chance. So the Tulane arguement actually favors the BCS.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Why does Texas get a higher BCS ranking than TCU? What great teams have they beaten? Kansas State? Nebraska? Are those teams really worth THAT much more than Louisville or Houston this year? What about Georgia? Who have they beaten except for Tennessee? Sure, they played LSU and Florida close, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I'm not saying that TCU has the same talent level as Texas or Georgia. I'm saying that there's no reasonable rationale for this, except for the fact that Texas and Georgia are in more prestigious conferences. Smaller conferences are NOT getting a fair shot, and in the BCS system, they never will.

At first, I thought an important factor was the teams that the contenders lost to. Then I recall that Texas lost at HOME to Arkansas. That normally wouldn't help any top 10 team's cause. Hmm. Okay, well, maybe the important thing is the teams that the contenders beat. Well, Tennessee's big wins were against schools that were in tailspins at the time (Florida early, Miami late). The Vols were also lackluster in home games against South Carolina and DUKE, for crying out loud. So why were they ranked above TCU in the BCS? None of those wins were particularly impressive except maybe the Miami game. So if it's not really important who beats you, and it's not important who you beat, then what is it?

It's all about prestige. A team in a BCS conference can honk against teams they should trash, but if a non-BCS team wins EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR GAMES, it's still not good enough.

I, like albionmoonlight, prefer the old bowl system over anything. I especially prefer it over the system that's in place now.

[Buccaneer]

dola

I just saw on ESPN.com saying that TCU should "get some respect" now. Respect? Losing to a 7-3 team??? If they had beaten SMU, then I would give them some respect but they spent all season beating poor to mediocre teams and they could not beat the one good team they played. Where does respect come in?

[panerd]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
Why does Texas get a higher BCS ranking than TCU? What great teams have they beaten? Kansas State? Nebraska? Are those teams really worth THAT much more than Louisville or Houston this year?

Yes. Dumbest question I have read in a while.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It's actually quite easy for the non-BCS teams to get a shot at the National Championship -- Schedule tougher teams. Period. And there is no such argument that the better teams won't want to do it. They are always looking at beating the lesser teams to beef up schedule. TCU should have done what Southern Miss. did. Southern Miss. scheduled Nebraska, Alabama, and Cal.

[Buccaneer]

It's all about prestige. A team in a BCS conference can honk against teams they should trash, but if a non-BCS team wins EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR GAMES, it's still not good enough.

As it should be, imo.

I, like albionmoonlight, prefer the old bowl system over anything. I especially prefer it over the system that's in place now.

In the old bowl system, TCU may have been invited to the Peach Bowl or Bluebonnett Bowl - regardless if they are 12-0 or 11-1.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally posted by panerd
Yes. Dumbest question I have read in a while.

You fail to realize that I'm asking if two teams were worth THAT much more than two others. I'm not putting Louisville and Houston on the same level as Nebraska and Kansas State. I think many people (if I'm reading correctly, you included) are putting these Big 12 teams several notches above Conference USA teams, and I think they're at least a LITTLE closer than people think.

Of course, this simply demonstrates the lack of respect that Conference USA and other such conferences get. K-State is known for their cupcake schedules (see their games against Cal, Troy State, McNeese State, and UMass), and then they even lost against Marshall. Nebraska barely beats Penn State, loses to Missouri, and gets blown out by Texas and the aforementioned Wildcats.

This year, where have these two teams shown that they're MILES ahead of Louisville or Houston?

People who argue that TCU didn't deserve to be ranked in their spot are not even opening their minds to the mere NOTION that the gap between the "majors" and the "mid-majors" isn't all that big.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
In the old bowl system, TCU may have been invited to the Peach Bowl or Bluebonnett Bowl - regardless if they are 12-0 or 11-1.

Very true. Of course, USC would go to the Rose Bowl, and Oklahoma would go to the Orange Bowl, I suppose, and then we'd have the old arguments of the past about who's the better team. I would really prefer that over this.

[panerd]

Put Southern Miss or TCU up against Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Nebraska, Missouri, and maybe even Kansas and I will bet on a win 9 games out of 10. The Big 12, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-10 are that superior to the smaller conferences. If the question is whether smaller conferences get screwed, then I agree with you wholeheartly. I think TCU and Northern Illinois were teams a lot of people wanted to cheer for. But based on ability to win football games the Conference USA vs. the Big 12 is like the Big 12 vs. the NFL. It isn't even the same game.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally posted by Vinatieri for Prez
It's actually quite easy for the non-BCS teams to get a shot at the National Championship -- Schedule tougher teams. Period. And there is no such argument that the better teams won't want to do it. They are always looking at beating the lesser teams to beef up schedule. TCU should have done what Southern Miss. did. Southern Miss. scheduled Nebraska, Alabama, and Cal.

No, that doesn't do it, because the conference bias will always be there. The non-BCS team would not get the luxury of blowing a game like USC did against California. They'd have to beat every single one of the BCS teams on their schedule in order to even get remote consideration.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Well you're not quite right on the comparisons. The better(1-3) teams in the BCS conferences (FSUs, Miamis, Oklahoma's) are miles ahead of the leaders of the mid-majors. And unless you schedule and beat a team like that, you don't deserve a shot at the BCS/national champinship.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally posted by panerd
Put Southern Miss or TCU up against Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Nebraska, Missouri, and maybe even Kansas and I will bet on a win 9 games out of 10. The Big 12, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-10 are that superior to the smaller conferences. If the question is whether smaller conferences get screwed, then I agree with you wholeheartly. I think TCU and Northern Illinois were teams a lot of people wanted to cheer for. But based on ability to win football games the Conference USA vs. the Big 12 is like the Big 12 vs. the NFL. It isn't even the same game.

You know, I was kinda following you until you threw Kansas (even though you said "maybe") in there. That shows me that the reputation of a team's conference DOES influence the way people view a team. Many people see "Big 12" or "Pac-10" and instantly think that the team is worth something, even if they have 3 losses. However, "MAC" or "Conference USA" means that the team is trash unless they've beaten top teams in other leagues.

So we agree that the smaller conferences get screwed, but I'm taking it a step further. I'm trying to figure out a logical reason that they're getting screwed.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
No, that doesn't do it, because the conference bias will always be there. The non-BCS team would not get the luxury of blowing a game like USC did against California. They'd have to beat every single one of the BCS teams on their schedule in order to even get remote consideration.

Let me get this conference bias straight...

USC: Lost to Cal. Beat top 10 Auburn and Washington State. Plus beat UCLA, Notre Dame, Arizona, BYU, Arizona State among others.

Ohio State: Lost at Wisconsin. Beat Washington, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, and NC State among others.

TCU: Lost to Southern Miss. Beat nobody.

Conference bias putting USC and OSU ahead of TCU?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
No, that doesn't do it, because the conference bias will always be there. The non-BCS team would not get the luxury of blowing a game like USC did against California. They'd have to beat every single one of the BCS teams on their schedule in order to even get remote consideration.

Somewhat right, but what's wrong with at least being required to win all those games to show you have the right stuff

[panerd]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
You know, I was kinda following you until you threw Kansas (even though you said "maybe") in there. That shows me that the reputation of a team's conference DOES influence the way people view a team. Many people see "Big 12" or "Pac-10" and instantly think that the team is worth something, even if they have 3 losses.

Be careful there. Take a team like Kansas. Where are their losses? Against Big 12 and Big 10 teams. They blow out the mid majors. Throw TCU in the Big 12 and let's see if they finish above Baylor and Iowa State.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally posted by Vinatieri for Prez
Well you're not quite right on the comparisons. The better(1-3) teams in the BCS conferences (FSUs, Miamis, Oklahoma's) are miles ahead of the leaders of the mid-majors. And unless you schedule and beat a team like that, you don't deserve a shot at the BCS/national champinship.

What about the teams in the BCS conferences, though? Some of them play teams like FSU or Miami and lose, but they still get consideration, simply because of the conference that they play in.

The whole argument is speculation on my side, and I submit that a great deal of speculation takes place on the other side, too. Given that, I'll now say what may be the craziest thing of all (again, this is speculation):

If a Big 12 team and a Conference USA team both beat FSU, Miami, and Florida in the same season, the Big 12 team would get a ton more respect, all other things being equal.

The BCS is all about the conferences. I don't think it has nearly as much to do with the TEAMS as people think.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally posted by panerd
Let me get this conference bias straight...

USC: Lost to Cal. Beat top 10 Auburn and Washington State. Plus beat UCLA, Notre Dame, Arizona, BYU, Arizona State among others.

Ohio State: Lost at Wisconsin. Beat Washington, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, and NC State among others.

TCU: Lost to Southern Miss. Beat nobody.

Conference bias putting USC and OSU ahead of TCU?

Well, let's forget that wins over UCLA, Notre Dame, and Arizona (!) aren't all that impressive this year...

I know I mentioned USC's loss to Cal earlier, but I wasn't really trying to compare TCU to either USC or Ohio State. TCU's undefeated season was not close to "major" schools with only one loss. Though it may not seem so, I do recognize the differences between an undefeated CUSA team and a once-beaten Big Ten team, for instance. Now, when it comes down to an undefeated CUSA team and a TWICE-beaten team, it gets a little muddy for me.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Vinatieri for Prez
Well you're not quite right on the comparisons. The better(1-3) teams in the BCS conferences (FSUs, Miamis, Oklahoma's) are miles ahead of the leaders of the mid-majors. And unless you schedule and beat a team like that, you don't deserve a shot at the BCS/national champinship.

Well, it's not quite that easy to just schedule a team like FSU or Miami if you're a top team in the mid-major conferences. Some have non-conference rivalries that take most non-conference games, and those teams often don't want to play the better mid major teams because they know they can be a threat and don't want to risk being knocked off by one of them.


EDIT: So basically what you're saying is tough luck. You're not part of the good ol' boys club so you don't get a chance.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You are correct for the most part, but as we're seeing with the BCS that strength of schedule is important even for the BCS teams (See LSU getting the short stick on this). So they are motivated to play non-cupcakes. Now it may be difficult to line up Miami, FSU, Oklahoma, but you should be able to line up at least one or two Syracuse, Nebraska, Georgia, Auburn, Arkansas, etc. Just like I said, Southern Miss. did manage to schedule Nebraska and Alabama.

Is it perfect - no. But without a playoff (which I support) it is the best there is.

[Balldog]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
down by three with five to play... hardly an ass-whupping.

I'm pretty sure it was 31-6 going into the 4th quarter.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by TroyF
No, it won't shut any of us up.

That's what people keep failing to realize. Just because they happened to lose, doesn't mean the system if a fair one.

And before someone pops off "you guys just don't change your opinion" keep in mind two things:

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The system isn't fair. My point wasn't non-BCS teams don't deserve access. TCU didn't deserve access.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
However, "MAC" or "Conference USA" means that the team is trash unless they've beaten top teams in other leagues.

So we agree that the smaller conferences get screwed, but I'm taking it a step further. I'm trying to figure out a logical reason that they're getting screwed.

Not so much the MAC. Conference USA... yes. Let's see..
Southern Methodist, Army, East Carolina... feel free to stop me at any point. Those teams wouldn't be contenders in I-AA.

Conference USA is a I-A conference in name only.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
Well, let's forget that wins over UCLA, Notre Dame, and Arizona (!) aren't all that impressive this year...

A little UCLA homerism.

No, UCLA isn't a great team this year. In fact, the past couple weeks they appear to be ready to fall apart, for reasons I won't get into here. Nonetheless, it is not for lack of talent.

UCLA is 6-6 and just a couple weeks removed from being in first place in the Pac-10. They can still finish third (maybe even second), in one of the best conferences out there. And the only non-BCS team they played was San Diego State (yes, they beat them).

Second point, USC has NOT beaten UCLA! It's rivalry week, folks, even out here in sunny SoCal, and I got a bone to pick with anyone who assumes a USC victory two days before the game is played.

No matter what the rankings of the respective teams, everyone in California knows there is no such thing in USC-UCLA games. The underdog upsets the "top Team" so often in this series, it's ridiculous.

Now, in two days, when and if USC pastes UCLA all over the Coliseum grounds, then you may feel free and cast your stones.

CR

P.S. As good as TCU has been this year, I would bet UCLA would give them quite a run for their money.

[Gambit]

"The BCS has one letter too many". Been hearing that for a while now. The system always seems do this near the end of the season. So instead of talking about USC v Oklahoma, we're talking about how the BCS is flawed.